From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |
Date: | 1999-06-03 03:00:57 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.19990603130057.00a35ba0@mail.rhyme.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 09:16 2/06/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Well, it's only good if the system will get rid of the objects when
>the user drops the owning table. This is true for indexes but AFAIK
>it is not yet true for sequences. So if we go with pg_ prefix now,
>there will be *no* way short of superuser privilege to get rid of the
>sequence object for a deleted table that had a serial field.
>
>Also, this will break pg_dump, which will have no good way to restore
>the state of a serial sequence object. (CREATE SEQUENCE pg_xxx will
>fail, no?)
I know I'm probably out of my depth here, but couldn't pg_dump ignore everything with a pg_* prefix? It can (safely?) assume any 'system' structures will be created as a result of some other user-based definition it is dumping?
[If you beat me about the head, I'll shut up]
Philip Warner.
P.S. I also like the idea of creating the 'system' structures with readily and reliably identifiable names, since it potentially gives the option of the user choosing to 'hide' them. As a user with about 20000 blobs to load, the output of a \d is pretty cumbersome.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422 | _________ \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-03 03:36:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Column name's length |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-03 02:47:39 | Re: Freezing docs for v6.5 |